SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250141. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALEX AMERIL y ANTALO ALIAS "ALEX", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250141(People of the Philippinesv. Alex Ameril y Antalo alias "Alex"). — On appeal before the Court is the Decision 1 dated May 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08422 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated March 15, 2016 of Branch 45, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Urdaneta City in Criminal Case No. U-14334 finding Alex Ameril y Antalo alias "Alex" (accused-appellant) guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant and Macapia Ampaso y Sultan (Ampaso) were charged before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information 3 that reads:
On May 4, 2006 at 5:20 o'clock (sic) in the afternoon at Doña Loleng Village, Brgy. Nancayasan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, together, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU), weighing 0.15 grams.
CONTRARY to Sec. 5, Art. 2 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
When arraigned, both accused-appellant and Ampaso pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Pending trial, Ampaso died of cardiovascular disease. 5
Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that on May 4, 2006, agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office 1, Pangasinan Provincial Office received a tip from a confidential informant that accused-appellant was selling drugs at Doña Loleng, Nancayasan, Urdaneta City. Acting on the tip of the informant, the PDEA agents successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant and Ampaso and confiscated from them one transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu and the buy-bust money. 6
After the arrest of accused-appellant and Ampaso, the scene of the crime was filled with aggressive onlookers. Thus the PDEA Agents decided to conduct the marking and inventory of the seized items at the PDEA office in Brgy. Tebeng, Dagupan City. There, the marking and inventory was witnessed by Kagawad Eusebio Lopez, Jr. (Kagawad Lopez) and Kagawad Rafael Daroy. Subsequently, the PDEA agents brought the seized plastic sachet to the crime laboratory. After examination, the contents of the plastic sachet tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 7
Version of the Defense
For his part, accused-appellant averred that he was taking a bath at a public well when several men suddenly arrived. One of the men accosted him, boarded him in a vehicle and brought him to a small house in Dagupan. After which, they told him that he was arrested for selling shabu. They also forced him to sign a document that he did not understand. 8
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision 9 dated March 15, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Consequently, it sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. CAIHTE
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 10 dated May 28, 2018, the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal and affirmed the RTC ruling. 11 It held that, all the elements of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 were present in the case. Moreover, assuming that the arresting officer failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the CA nevertheless found an unbroken chain of custody of the evidence. It noted that only Police Officer III Apollo L. Calimlim had custody of the evidence from the time of seizure until its marking and turnover to the evidence custodian and forensic chemist. 12
Hence this appeal.
Issue
Whether accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 13
To successfully prosecute the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, not only must the prosecution establish the above-mentioned elements be proven; it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 14 Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the offense. 15 "As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same." 16
The law further requires that the physical inventory and photography of the dangerous drugs be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: "(a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 17 a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." 18
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 19 However, in cases where strict compliance with the mandatory procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the confiscated items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 20 With respect to the witness requirement, noncompliance therewith will not be fatal to the case if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers actually exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 21
Here, the three-witness rule under RA 9165 applies as the offense was allegedly committed in 2006, or before the law's amendment in 2014. A perusal of the records shows that first, there was no conduct of photography as required under RA 9165; and second, there was a deviation from the witness requirement under the same law.
Nothing in the record shows that there was ever a conduct of photography of the seized items. Worse, the inventory of the seized items were witnessed only by two barangay kagawad. There was no representative from both the media and the DOJ. The Court further notes that Kagawad Lopez, one of the witnesses during the inventory, testified that when he arrived at the PDEA Office, the Certificate of Inventory was already prepared and all he did was sign it. 22
The absence of the other required witnesses was not justified by the prosecution. There was likewise no statement that the apprehending officers had exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses in order to comply with the three-witness rule. DETACa
In People v. Crisostomo, 23 the Court pronounced:
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Under the law, the presence of the insulating witnesses is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself — and for that reason imperils the prosecution's case. 24
The Court also notes, the miniscule amount of shabu involved in this case, i.e., only 0.15 gram. It is settled that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 25 It is for this very reason that the identity and the integrity of the seized shabu, or the corpus delicti, must be properly established by the prosecution.
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the buy-bust team's unjustified noncompliance with the three-witness rule under RA 9165 broke the chain of custody and tainted the integrity and the evidentiary value of the allegedly seized shabu. Given the prosecution's failure to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti, the Court is constrained to overturn accused-appellant's conviction on the ground of reasonable doubt. 26
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08422 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Alex Ameril y Antalo alias "Alex" is ACQUITTED of the offense charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Alex Ameril y Antalo alias "Alex," unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Further, the Court NOTES the following:
1. The letter dated March 30, 2021 of CTSSupt. Albert C. Manalo, OIC, Inmate Documents and Processing Division, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City in compliance with the Resolution dated January 25, 2021; and
2. The letter dated July 4, 2021 of CTSSupt. Ricardo S. Zulueta, Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison-MaxSeCom, Muntinlupa City in compliance with the Resolution dated April 26, 2021.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 45-54; penned by Presiding Judge Tita S. Obinario.
3. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9. CA rollo, pp. 45-54.
10.Rollo, pp. 3-15.
11. CA rollo, pp. 45-54.
12.Rollo, pp. 8 and 13.
13.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
14.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
15. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
16. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
17. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
18.People v. Gabunada, supra.
19.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
20. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
21.People v. Gabunada, supra.
22. CA rollo, p. 105.
23. G.R. No. 252488 (Notice), May 12, 2021.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.People v. Echeveria, G.R. No. 247322 (Notice), June 17, 2020.